“JournoList”… why Paul Marks is NOT rubbing his hands and saying “I told you so”

Yet again “JournoList” (the international organization by which leftist journalists cooperate to serve the cause of collectivism) has been exposed. Tucker Carlson over at the “Daily Caller” has exposed more of their propaganda and disinformation campaigns. Specifically the effort to distract attention from, and smear as a “racist” anyone who tried to report Barack Obama’s two decade membership of an extreme “Black Liberation Theology” (an ideology that mixes Marxism with black racism and then puts a “Christian” cover on both) church and his close connection with the vile bigot the Rev. Jeremiah “Audacity of Hope” Wright.

Outwardly such magazines as Time and the Economist pretend to compete and to offer different world views (the Economist pretending to be a free market supporting journal – in spite of its support for endless bailouts and other corporate welfare, and support government “stimulus” spending). Yet Mr Carlson shows (by publishing their discussions) that high ranking people at these (and most other) “mainstream media” outlets actively cooperate, and coordinate their disinformation and propaganda campaigns for the collectivist cause.

As I have attacked the “mainstream” media, especially the Economist – whose lying claim to support liberty has long offended me, for years, I might be expected to be saying “I told you so” at this point…

…But actually I am astonished…

This is because like Bernie Goldberg (of “Bias”, “A Slobbering Love Affair”) I have long believed the source of the pro-big government bias in the media to be a “mindset” produced by education at both school and university, and the environment that MSM (“mainstream media”) people operate within. To find out that their really is a sort of electronic “Star Chamber” where people (supposedly from competing media outlets) deliberately set out to cover up the truth and to coordinate their lies and disinformation (knowing they are lies and disinformation), well that is rather a shock. What is next going to be exposed? Will we find out, for example, that important people within the British publishing industry (and book trade generally) conspire to undermine books that do not fit in with their view of the world – and to promote books that do? For example, the endless efforts to promote Andrew Marr’s “The Making of Modern Britain” (“2 for 1” offers and so on) deserves a look to see why that is – as the book has no merit as a work of history.

For example, the book repeatedly implies that living standards for ordinary people were better in late 19th century and early 20th century Germany than they were in Britain – not only not true, but the exact reverse of the truth. On this deception Mr Marr bases his support for early 20th century British politicians, such as David Lloyd George, copying the big government policies of Germany – only crying that they did not do so enough. “But Paul, Mr Marr is a big media name – that is why the book is pushed”. Perhaps so – but how does that explain all the works by lesser known (or even unknown) people that are pushed.

For example, how does one explain the fact that every book in a typical British bookshop about Barack Obama is supportive of this man? And every book on Bill Clinton (at least in my home town) is also supportive? Whereas every work on Mrs Thatcher is hostile – with even such straight forward things as her claim to have read F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” after World War II dismissed (even though it was best selling book). Thatcher can not have read this (or any other) book you see – and her policies (and I am certainly not saying I approved of all of those policies) can not possibly have been based on any principles (only class interest).

I do not believe that British people are a different species of animal from Americans. Once the leftist near monopoly of American publishing broke down many conservative and libertarian books proved to be best sellers in the United States – in spite of the efforts of such publications as “Publishers Weekly” (so often a source of biased and dishonest reviews – which, sadly, still appear on Amazon.com). In Britain the problem is not so much biased and dishonest reviews – as no reviews at all. For example, the Economist has not published (over a period of years) a single review of any book that blames the economic crises on government intervention – in spite of several of these books (such as Thomas Woods “Meltdown” and Thomas Sowell’s “The Housing Boom and Bust” being best sellers in the United States).

Actually I do not believe that their is a British book trade version of “JournoList” – but then I did not believe there was such a thing in the media either.

July 24th, 2010 |

43 comments to “JournoList”… why Paul Marks is NOT rubbing his hands and saying “I told you so”

Don’t know how widely read this publication is, but, indeed, it is fantastic that a bit of the media control has been broached.
Either there is a huge revolution under way, or this is part of a further conspiracy to conceal, or this is a corner of the curtain that has been lifted and one can expect it to be slammed shut, soonest!
Definitely to be watched with interest!

One of the Journolisters, Prof. Zasloff of the University of California at Los Angeles, wondered whether the Federal Communications Commission couldn’t simply refuse to renew the Fox Network’s broadcast license. Using the police power of the state to silence critics is an act worthy of Hugo Chavez or any other dictator. It’s a direct breach of the Bill of Rights. Where did Professor Zasloff get such a fascist idea? From Yale, Harvard and Cambridge, where Zasloff received his numerous college degrees. Now the taxpayers of California are paying him to teach the advantages of dictatorship to the future lawyers of the United States.

My thoughts almost exactly, Paul. I, too, would have explained things in terms of “mindset” and “groupthink” and am surprised to find that it is as much a… the only word is conspiracy as it seems to be.

However the time the JournoListers, for instance, spent JournoListing is probably a fairly small proportion of their working time. Also, it hasn’t lasted that long, though there were predecessors (Was there an earlier similar list called “Townhall”? Not to be confused with the right-leaning website of very similar name.) And the factors that made them suitable to be chosen to participate were indeed the result of groupthink.

Most importantly the thinking that made the whole system of collusion seem acceptable and natural to them, just a natural outgrowth of friendship, was the result of a very strong groupthink meme.

Can you point to some direct evidence for this extraordinary claim, please?

All that’s on offer is a series of assertions by the Daily Caller about what some lefty journalists said to each other about stories. All sorts of self-selected groups (such as right-wing bloggers, for example) are inclined to join lists where they can bounce their views off likeminded others, try and persuade pre-disposed people to agree with them some more and receive some reinforcement. That doesn’t make them either an effective conspiracy or particularly malevolent.

That the media in general fails to share, or air, your or my viewpoints is not in any way evidence that they are being successfully suppressed. For that to be plausible they would have to be widely held in the first place.

I suspect if the full archive of JournoList were to be published, one could – if one were able to sustain the tedium of analysis – a dozen fanatical calls to action having obviously no effect for every occasion on which something even slightly similar happened to happen in the outside world. Soi-disant ‘activists’ are much more inclined to bloviation than action, and confirmation bias keeps them at it more than productivity.

I am inclined to agree with Guy as to the overall significance of this and I too do not see a ‘conspiracy’ so much as people of like mind keeping in touch… but the fact such widely dispersed folks do indeed share world views is something that cannot be said often enough, given the hilarious MSM posturing of ‘fairness’ and ‘impartiality’ and risible claims to be a special and indispensable estate standing apart from Lords and Commoners alike.

This story does reveal to the ‘great unwashed’ the nature of their purveyors of news in a way that is delightfully unedifying. In practical effects there is simply no downside to this story from my perspective even if in truth there is less to it than meets the eye 😀

I don’t know that statist bias in the media is a product of education, but rather a realisation that they are onto a good thing.

In Britain we only get to vote every 4-5 years, and the vast majority of votes cast are meaningless. Rather than be more democratic, the media are used as a tier of government. Newspapers are courted almost as a form of informal referendum. Politicians make statements like “The people are calling for X”, when of course what they mean is that it is a sentiment being expressed in the papers.

In recent memory the party which was supported by The Sun has always won the election.

I just think newspapermen know a good thing when they see it and like the influence it gives them. Quite frankly I find it appalling, but that’s the way it is.

Even more disturbing are the people who will think the way their rag of choice tells them. Of course they pre-select a bit by picking one that agrees with their general politics, but still.

You don’t need to conduct referendums in the UK because the British people are the biggest sheep-brained media junkies in the world.

Regardless of the influence of JournoList they were clearly already lefties before they joined. The remarkable dominance of the left over teaching establishments and academia is still undeniably the root cause.

Through control of the media and educational establishments the communists have effectively killed democracy without firing a single shot. The marxist media impose themselves between the people and their representatives, and police all that goes on on either side to ensure that it conforms to their own prejudices.Thats why Gramsci stressed the primacy of cultural revolution.

and now with the imminent islamic takeover of Europe and a muslim communist in the white house one can do little but weep, scream and vomit all at the same time.

You mean like here? In which case perhaps your main beef is that they have been more successful.

By here you mean the journolista, or the samizdata?

If a group of people cooperate to do something that gives benefit and are successful, I have no beef.
If they cooperate to perpetrate lies in order to steal, defraud and make the lives of billions of people miserable, or terminated, I do have a problem with that.

1. There appears to be an effort by a group of people to capture the resources of their employers and use them for the benefit of another, without regard to the impact on their employers. Particularly, their employers rely on credibility.

2. The buyers of the product of said employers have been deceived as to the reliability of the product. For this, the proper remedy is simply to openly discuss that the product is not credible as per 1 above.

For many of us, item 2 is not really new, though the extent of it appears to be. Item 1 is new, and appears to expand the scope of item 2.

Guy Herbert please remind me when the Economist magazine reviewed Thomas Wood’s “Meltdown” or Thomas Sowell’s “The Housing Boom and Bust” or indeed ANY work that pointed out that the cause of the economic crises was government intervention (the increase in the money supply by the Federal Reserve and other central banks – and the active direction of the money into the housing market by government controlled “private” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

I am not talking about a favourable review – I am talking about any review at all. It is possible that I missed the review (after all I am not a subscriber), but I doubt there have been such reviews.

Think about this Guy – a supposedly “free market” magazine operating a “Spike” (if you remember that exposure of the left some years ago) principle – an effort not to refute noncollectivist opinions, but to smother them in darkness.

And over the very issue (the economic crises) that has been taking up most of the Economist’s attention for the last three years.

Or …… over the last week or so Financial Times has been running a “great debate” on whether government “stimulus” spending should be continued. Several articles in each issue.

And every single person writing has been a supporter of the doctrine of “stimulus” – of course they argue (for example over whether there should be still more deficit spending) but every single person has supported the doctrine that government deficit spending is a good thing in a recession.

How is that a REAL debate?

In a way what is going on is a Hegelian dialetic (a fancy way of saying it is not really a “debate” at all).

Of course I am not saying that all the people involved have even heard of Hegel – but it is the principle that both “right Hegelians” (such as Hegel himself) and “left Hegelians” (those who adapted his ideas for the purposes of socialism) used. A dialetic is designed to look like a critical examination (a real discussion) but everything of BASIC IMPORTANCE is actually in the frame of reference before a single word has been spoken.

As Karl Marx himself said (in a letter to Fred) “whenever I am in danger of being made to look an ass [i.e. a real critic has pointed out logical flaws in Karl’s doctrine, or has pointed out that the theory predicts things that are simply not true] I always get out of it with a bit of dialetic” – i.e. a web of words designed to defeat the critic by getting him accept the doctrine by the very way the discussion is structured. Of course Fred was a past master at helping in this.

Once one accepts a paradigm (in this case the one that leads to thinking that even more government spending is a good thing if there is a slump) then any following “debate” (which, in its UNSPOKEN terms of reference assumes this) is going to be a farce – but a very USEFUL farce for the people of power (both political, financial, and media) as their power depends on those unspoken terms of reference (the basic ideological assumptions built into the structure of the “debate”).

Of course conmen have been doing this (rigging discussions by building in a structure that accepts their basic ideology before the discussion has even started) since Plato’s day.

Karl Marx himself denounced it (when he was not finding the game useful himself) – specifically on credit money expansion as a good thing for an economy (with the phony debates about “how much” hideing the fact that the assumption, that it was a good thing, was just ASSUMED [hence “assumption”] before the “debate” even starts).

The alliance between Marxists and Credit Money expansion cranks (called “Keynesians” since the 1930’s – although Lord Keynes actually invented nothing of importance) only really dates from the 1940’s – the work of Maurice Dobb and Straffa.

As for the “mainstream media” generally – how many of them are formal Marxists (although the F.T. has had card carrying Communist Party members on its staff – when Marxists were stupid enough to actually have party cards) I do not know.

My guess is that most are NOT – they are just a mixture of people desperate to seem “liberal” and “Progressive” , and (of course) the greedy guts.

The people who will do anything (ally with anyone) in order to keep the gravy train of government support (such as the old “discount window” for banks, so they can borrow at one rate of interest and then turn round and lend out the, newly created, money for a higher rate of interest – sometimes lend back the money to the very govermment that just lent it to them).

It is difficult to have much sympathy for either the desperate-to-seem-Progressive types, or the greedy guts.

They are both (regardless of their academic qualifications – these being utterly worthless as a guide) “useful idiots” – and a lot of their blindness is moral as well as intellectual (hence the lack of sympathy).

If the msm were just people who believed in a lot of nonsense that would be one thing – but (contrary to what you say Guy) it is obvious that they also lie, and cover things up, and engage in disinformation and propaganda campaigns (actually knowing what they say and print is false).

So why should I care what the Communists (such as the life long Marxist Barack Obama) do to them when they are no longer of use?

By the way – do you really believe that the vast (and very expensive) journalism structures of the newspapers, news magazines and network television stations really did not know about Barack Obama’s background during the 2008 election campaign?

Did not know about his Red family (mother, father, maternal grandparents), his childhood mentor (Frank Marshal Davis), his activities whilst at Columbia in New York (endless Marxist conferences) his DECADES of work with Marxist controlled organizations in Chicago and……

And when it WAS reported (by a few individuals – most of whom did NOT work for
Fox News in 2008, for example Glenn Beck worked for CNN [just as John Stossel worked for ABC] they found their places of employment became a somewhat difficult environment) the msm still did not show interest.

No “refutation” – just either blankout or sneering.

And the msm are STILL playing this game – as is the British book trade.

Of course in a British context (where there are no alternative sources of information – the establishment is “all in all”) genuine error (rather than deceit) is a possible explination.

However, I still believed that it was a “culture” or “mindset” (“it is so vulgar to worry about Marxists”) rather than an organized effort.

In the book trade I am reminded of the letter from Mr Miller (of a “distinguished”, his word, New York publisher) to W.T. Crouch (then of Chicago University Press) back in the 1940’s.

Mr Miller explained how the various publishing houses had agreed not to publish Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” although it would “sell very well” (oh how vulgar), and he thought that Crouch out at Chicago U.P. would agree to play ball.

Mr Crouch did not play ball – he pubilshed “Road to Serfdom”and sent Mr Miller’s letter to “Freeman” magazine.

Of course there is often a price for this sort of conduct. But then a person has to be prepared to pay any price to REALLY oppose the left. I made my choice long ago and pay the price every day. But I would make the same choice again.

I find the British news agenda far more homogenous than the one in the United States regardless of whether such collusion occurs here. The BBC as mainstream-by-definition Official Voice of the Nation almost makes this kind of thing unnecessary.

I live in Japan but one disturbing thing I have noticed wherever I go in the world

If I am sitting in a random bar next to a random American I am not immediately able to guess his opinions on private gun ownership, on the death penalty, on global warming, on the banking crisis, on private property rights, on globalization, or on health care merely by inquiring as to his nationality.

If I am sitting next to a German I can almost invariably guess his opinion on EVERY ONE of those issues simply by asking him what country he is from.

British opinion seems marginally less monolithic but not by a whole lot.

American Liberals are annoying as hell but at least the brighter ones sometimes acknowledge the existence of counterarguments. The leftist hegemony of their opinion-shaping industries isn’t so complete that they can pretend that other opinions don’t exist.

Not so in Europe
Many adults in Britain have never heard anyone articulate a defense of the right to bear arms.

They are literally unaware that counter arguments to the British Establishment consensus exist.

It does go somewhat further than just a common goal, yes. Apologies.
I see Wiki categorising conspiracies as:

Types of conspiracies

Cabal, an association between religious, political, or tribal officials to further their own ends, usually by intrigue
Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage
Conspiracy (crime), an agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement
Conspiracy (political), the overthrow of a government

It then goes on to explore the above categories.
I guess in all of them the common thread is a dishonest or criminal, deceptive group action to perpetrate a fraud or an overthrow of government.

Basically to put other people at a disadvantage in some way by deception?

Well that was a long comment, and I doubt Guy Herbert will read it (“if you can not put what you need to say in a few words, then do not bother writing – as no one is going to spend their lives following your rambleings” a good saying).

However, a (fairly) short comment does occur to me.

Some time ago Guy wrote a “point of information” telling me (and others) that of course the 2010 Reith Lecturer would spend his broadcasting time explaining scientific knowledge – that it was utterly absurd of me to suggest that the man (Lord Whatever) would spend his time talking politics (the implications of science for “public policy” why we must trust the people in whitecoats and not ask for detailed explinations that our little minds could not understand and….) – after all he was a wonderful scientist and ……..

Actually I never denied that he was a wonderful scientist.

What I said was that the ads on the radio (voiced by something of Ludlow himself) were politics with no effort to explain science, and that I feared the Reith Lecturers would be the same (as they normally are these days) and would, therefore, be a waste of an opportunity to teach people about the wonders of the universe.

After the patronising “point of information” the Reith Lectures were broadcast – and proved to be as I had feared.

I am absolutely with John B here. Semantics aside (call it ‘conspiracy’ or call it ‘affinity’, or whatever), the crucial difference between Journolist and Samizdata, Ian, is that the latter never suggested to use lies to further its agenda – not to mention the crucial differences between the two agendas. When your ends are unjust, you don’t need to justify your means.

“Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

That is a familiar argument. It suggests that the writer believes the media is deliberately misleading the public because it focusses on the wrong things and fails to promote his views. But the word “idiocy” suggests that the discourse he wishes to promote is his idea of perceptive truth-telling, not lies.

What strikes me as weirdest about this piece is actually the quote from Stephanopoulos – a liberal Democrat himself – held out as the epitome of a daming debate. “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?” – to English ears this is just ludicrous, and to libertarian ears one would hope it is repugnant. Failing to worship the Homeland as much as the next man? What kind of a charge is that?

It sounds to me like the sort of idiocy that ought to be killed, even if you want to attack Obama, not defend him. It matters if the man is a raving nutter whose time is given to promoting poisonous conspiracy theories and if the president-to-be genuinely regards him as a mentor. If there’s a media furore about him being ‘unpatriotic’ distracting from those important ifs, we’re supposed to think that is useful, valuable truth, and the lefty journalists are being wicked in wishing it away? – There being no evidence they succeeded in suppressing it.

I think we have a bit of “smited-induced confusion” above but thank you.
Paul refers to and quotes K Marx: “whenever I am in danger of being made to look an ass [i.e. a real critic has pointed out logical flaws in Karl’s doctrine, or has pointed out that the theory predicts things that are simply not true] I always get out of it with a bit of dialetic” – i.e. a web of words designed to defeat the critic by getting him accept the doctrine by the very way the discussion is structured.

It seems to me this is a major problem. There is little “love of truth”, but rather the desire to establish an agenda.
How can one ever get to reality, or the truth of anything, with arguments that have more to do with an agenda or one’s own importance?

But regarding MSM “conspiracies”.
A technique used by MSM journalists, I was told by someone active in countering propaganda, is to bounce stories off each other to keep them going in their various publications.
Which I guess would amount to a conspiracy.
And it seems various state officials are now keen to subsidise MSM newspapers, which are in danger of going under, in order to retain a “free press” !

It sounds to me like the sort of idiocy that ought to be killed, even if you want to attack Obama, not defend him.

Really? I strongly disagree. Depending on circumstances, I think that idiocy is best exposed or ignored rather than killed.

It matters if the man is a raving nutter whose time is given to promoting poisonous conspiracy theories and if the president-to-be genuinely regards him as a mentor.

No it does not – not as far as factual reporting is concerned.

If there’s a media furore about him being ‘unpatriotic’ distracting from those important ifs, we’re supposed to think that is useful, valuable truth, and the lefty journalists are being wicked in wishing it away?

All truth is useful and valuable, Guy, by the mere virtue of it being the truth. I think you may be missing the point: they are not being wicked for wishing it away, but for actually trying to manipulate what is and what is not going to be reported. Whether Rev. Wright/Obama/Bush saved a drowning puppy or killed their own mother – I wan both items reported. Granted, I know that in reality I cannot expect all media outlets to give both news items equal air time or paper inches, but I do expect them to at least not tell us that this is what they are doing, while in reality they are actively colluding to do the exact opposite. That is the lying and the wicked part in the whole affair.

In case you missed it, the relevant quote from Rev. Wright was “God Damn America”.

“Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

I don’t think that’s the right question. A more relevant question is whether or not Rev. Wright openly hates America. That’s a very different question. It may not matter to you, but I’m an American, and therefore a subset of America.

I have very little room for people who are comfortable dealing with those who openly hate me. I learned that lesson the hard way.

It’s not about “questioning patriotism”, it’s about basic self-preservation.

There being no evidence they succeeded in suppressing it.

My recollection is that it dropped out of the news rapidly, without significant serious discussion.

From 1979 onwards I heard (ALMOST EVERY DAY) on BBC television and radio (and other media outlets) attacks on Mrs Thatcher’s cuts in government spending.

Not just on the news and current affairs shows – but on the comedy shows also (of course the BBC Charter was basically ripped up way back when “That was the week that was” series was first broadcast in the early 1960s – the last real excuse for the “License Fee” ended then). Nor were the reports just from guests – the reports on BBC news and current affairs shows were from paid BBC employees. And NO I am not not just talking about defence spending or spending on the police – I am talking about spending on the Welfare State (including the National Health Service).

Yet in 1979 government spending vastly INCREASED.

“It was not a LIE Paul – the BBC people just did not know”.

That would be a difficult line of defence Guy – as Brian Waldon (an ex LABOUR M.P.) pointed out the basic FACTS (not opinions) on British government spending on his ITV show “Weekend World”. And he did so repeatedly. The media people did not even have to do any checking themselves (no difficult things like reading documents) – they just had to watch “Weekend World”.

No it was not a “mistake” or “a matter of opinion” – what the BBC and others did was a CAMPAIGN OF LIES.

“Alll this is beside the point Paul”.

O.K. let us get up to 2008.

No free American television station made any attempt to really report the fact about either Barack Obama or Joe Biden.

In fact they were presented as “centreist Democrats”.

YOU (Guy Herbert) used the words “centreist Democrat” yourself.Who put that idea in your mind Guy? It did not just appear there by magic.

Let us leave aside Barack Obama’s background and just look at his VOTING RECORD (an easy think to check).

“Centreist Democrat”? That is not an opinion – a look at the voting record shows it is utter nonsense.

And what of Joe Biden?

The media faithfully reported the propaganda line – that he was picked to “balance the ticket” and “challange my opinions”.

No Marxist background for Biden – but have a look at his VOTING record also.

Are you seriously telling me that this is a “matter of opinion”?

The freaking thing is there on the page Guy – media people can read.

No it was not “innocent error” (or what not) it was campaign of disinformation and propaganda.

True nonjournalists (such as Sean Hannity) tried to counter the propaganda campaign by those people who had been taught “responsible journalism” (i.e. brainwashing) in their “Schools of Journalism” – but they did not and do not have platforms on the free television broadcasters (one has to pay to see Fox News).

And people in other television outlets found that things got very uncomfortable for them when they tried to expose the campaign.

Yet again I have made the mistake of writing a comment that is too long – so I will also write a shorter one (one I hope Guy will read).

The very day that John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his choice to be candidate for Vice President the BBC reported that she was “close to the oil industry” (those exact words).

This was a person who had made her name (in Alaskian politics) by bashing the oil companies over the head – both on the Commission and as Governor, Indeed Palin only became Governor by smashing establishment Republicans – specifically for corrupt dealings with oil companies.

“Well Paul if Palin was smashing oil companies over the head – that means she must have been close to them, otherwise she could not reach and ….”

Please do not go down that road Guy.

Nor was it the BBC that told this DIRECT LIE (indeed the exact opposite of the truth) the day that Palin was announced.

It was all other “mainstream media” outlets.

Was that all some vast coincidence Guy?

They all told the same lie, about the same person, on the same day (the very first day she was announced) and in the same words.

Nothing to see here people, no campaign of disinformation and propaganda, move along now……

Guy – to this day most Americans do not know the facts about the case you cite.

It was not one line from J. Wright.

It was DECADES of Marxist “Liberation Theology” work – and for 20 years Barack Obama was at Wright’s right hand (no pun intended). J. “Audacity of Hope” Wright and Barack Obama can not be held to be fundemenally different (the effort to do so is absurd). The only real difference is that Barack Obama does not shoot his mouth off in such open language.

That is why the question from George S. was such absurd (there I agree with you).

Barack Obama does not “love America” – he HATES the basic (limited government – private property based civil society) principles of America (as does his wife – she has both and said and written this many times, going all the way back to her time in Princeton, yet most Americans STILL known nothing of this).

George S. was trying to distract attention from a story that Sean Hannity (among others) broke – whilst still being able to hold “I covered it – I am not as bad as the rest of the msm”

If George S. was really a foe of Obama do you think he would get a conference call from the Obama Whitehouse (a call that only goes out to key allies) every working day?

Or did you not know about that?

The only time that an ABC journalist ever asked a “difficult” question to Barack Obama was when Charles Gibson asked about Capital Gains Tax (in a debate early on with Hillary Clinton and many others).

Asked such a direct question “would you increase the Capital Gains Tax” Barack could hardly follow his normal policy (LIE about the matter) because the Primary elections were still on – and leftists (who might not understand that he did not mean what he said) might not turn out to vote for him.

So Barack had to say “yes” – even when asked “if increasing Capital Gains Tax meant that revenue from it FELL would you still increase the tax”.

That was the only time that any “mainstream journalist” ever asked Barack Obama a tough question (not just in 2008 – but in any previous election also, even in the 2004 Senate election he was treated like a divine entity that had been kind enough to visit Earth).

Charles Gibson later tried to make amends with Palin bashing (and so on) but he was never actually forgiven for the question he asked in early 2008.

I repeat my basic point.

Unless people watched such things as Sean Hannity’s show in 2008 they would not know the basic facts – even about Rev. Wright.

What ABC reported only scratched the top of the story.

And even Hannity would admit that he is no Mr Deep – a lot of this “Black Liberation Theology” stuff took him a long time to understand – and before one understands it one can not explain it to other people.

Glenn Beck (at CNN) was in the same position.

First there was the “who is this guy” stage – he had not really thought about Barack Obama till the win in Iowa.

Then there was the “what is all this stuff” stage – going in to the world of modern Marxism (the language that is used – due to the influence of the Frankfurt School and so on) simply makes no sense for people without experience of it. It might as well be Ancient Greek.

And remember Beck (like Hannity) is not a university graduate – to him (even as late as 2007) “Marxists” were people who USED to exist before the Berlin Wall came down.

What goes on in universties (such as teacher training colleges) and “charitable trusts” (and so on) was an utter mystery to Beck in 2007 (or for a lot of 2008).

As I say – even the basic LANGUAGE made no sense to the man. He had to educate himself and even with help (from nasty “paranoid” and “embittered” people who spent many years in universities), he would admit that this was a very painful process.

For excample, Glenn was still using the word “McCarthite” as a insult as late as 2010 (as he had been taught to do so as a child – at school and by the media). He had been given a copy of Stanton Evans’ “Blacklisted by History” but refused to read it till only a few months ago.

Beck complains that the right (not just the left) have “made me a person I did NOT want to be – I wanted to be an entertainer and you have made me a broadcaster with a cause, the very thing I have always HATED”.

However, that was his own choice – people presented things before him (not just “Blacklisted by History” but so many other books and so on), but it was his choice whether to read and think about them or not.

Of course the left are now sneering that if he had not read so much (into the small hours of the morning – day after day) he would not now be losing his sight.

And then his further choice was whether or not to broadcast about such things.

People like this (basically blue collar – I am not talking down, I have worked in blue collar jobs for decades myself) looked to the media to investigate and expose all this complex stuff.

They did not understand (till it was much too late) that the msm are playing for the other side.

It does seem there is some form of elite [conspiracy without the cloak, dagger, or top hat?] capitalising on, or even organising (!) events around the world.
(They don’t necessarily set up the Christmas Bomber, but when he happens they move in to use the event.)

One of the odd things about the modern “cultural elite” is how bad their taste is.

I am not a cultured man, but I know enough to recognise bad taste when it is put in front of me.

The poetry that Barack Obama had on his big day – it was crap.

The look of interest as muscians mimed to recordings of their work – it was a FAKE look of interest (obviously fake – the man clearly has no interest in serious music at all).

The “modern art” paintings he has put on the walls of the Whitehouse – even someone who likes that sort of thing would know (indeed someone who likes modern art would especially know) this is the WRONG SETTING.

We have a leader of the “Cultural Elite” who is culturally even more ignorant than I am.

Interesting discussion! I tend to think of the activities of the like-minded as on a spectrum from loose affinity to tight conspiracy. It’s not so important to me just where a person or group falls for definition purposes, rather the degree of:
1. effectiveness
2. concealment
3. consistency or dedication
4. foreign funding or control
5. enmity to Western values

Who Are We?

The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.